REV. E. H. GULLIVER ON GOVERNMENT. Auckland, November 11.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 420, 16 November 1889, Page 5

REV. E. H. GULLIVER ON GOVERNMENT. Auckland, November 11.

A large audience assembled in tho Lomestreet Hall on Sunday evening to hear Mr Gulliver on the influence of government on the progress of civilisation. The lecturer feaicl : there are certain subjects the very mention of which has a certain ling of pugnacity — a suggestion of ''taking sides." A sorb of "who'll tread on the tail of my coat" feeling is aroused by their mere name, and the question of government is especially such a subject ; but in addressing you I do nob speak as a Conservative or a Liberal or as a partisan in any way. Outside this hall we might doubtle&s find ourselves ranged under some party name, bub this evening we approach the subject on the broadest grounds, and quite apart from any political bias. We allow that any settled population must of necessity have some form of government, otherwise it would be liable to fall into anarchy, and civilisation would be impossible. But, beyond the mere, preservation of older, we want to inquite what good does a Government do in promoting civilisation ? We see, indeed, in Egypt and other old counti ies the remains ot great \\ orks carried out by the Governments ot antiquity, and in modern capitals, such as Pans, we see great works in art and architecture done by Government agency ; but beyond this there is room for grave doubt aa to the benefits derived by civilisation from Government influence. We know well that many people unhesitatingly ascribe the prevailing civilisation of any counbiy to the character and influence or its Government, bub the moro one studies history the more one is led to doubt the tiuth of this. We find that Government has in almost all case 3 gone outside it& true functions of seeming fair play to all, and preventing the oppression of the weak by the strong ; and taking the history of nation after nation and ot Government after Government, we see that they have all gone in for " protection, " not in the nairow, modem sense of protective taritls only, bub in the broadest sense. For centuiies it was consiaered right that the Government should regulate the religious creed of the people, and control the coui^e of their commerce, and the history ot those time* is a history of Government meddling and muddling. About the year lt>7o there were iive Acts (f-inoe known aa the Clarendon Code), passed by the British Parliament. The tendency of these Acts (The Cun yon tide, Corporations, Uniformity, Test, and Five Mile Acts), was simply neither more nor less than " internal," and for tlii^ reason — the career of every man and e»en his veiy existence was made by means of these Acts, to depend on his uttering certain words which he might absolutely disbelieve. If he did believe them there was not so much to be said, bub if not — is the woid I have used too strong to expiess the evil chai-acter ot these Acts '! — Government thus (although, be it lemembered, acting from good motnes) was deliberately spreading hypocri?y far and wide, and ib was not until the beginning of the present cenbuiy that those wicked and mischievous Acts were set aside. There is nothing more sensitive to outside intcrfeience than trade or commerce, yet we constantly see Governments (still from the best ot motives) interteiing with the course ot trade by means ot heavy tarills which encourage smuggling and confuse people's ideas of right and wrong. This was shown in a remarkable manner dining the wars of the Frst Napoleon when he tried his utmost to cripple England by closing the continent of Europe against Biibish commerce. The constant evasion of the law thus encouraged is the least part of the evil : far worse is the deliberately degrading and corrupting eflect thus produced bv a Government on ib= own citizens, by contusing the ideas of right and wrong, and thus rendering a high type of civilisation and morality absolutely impracticable. It wo look at the legislation of this century we shall find that it has been, to a very great extent, occupied with "wiping the slate;" I mean repealing the evil Acts of picceding ages. I'or example, so recently as 1846 we had the repeal of bhe Corn Laws by Sir "Robert Peel. Bub, was this really due to the Government or to the Anti Corn Law League '! 1 say it was due to neither. It was really duo to public opinion, for although it was ultimately carried into elleot by Government agency, it was not done till public opinion imperatively and unmistakeably demanded ib. And so in all cases we find that tho reforms (the credit of which is given to" the Government of the daj ) are really due to some solitary thinker, who, in the retirement of his study, has braced out tho laws of cause and c fleet, and his words falling on the public mind, like a stone in a pond, gradually influence public opinion in ever-widening circles until at last its pressure is ielt to be irresistible, and then, and not i ill then, can Government act ellectually. How then can we ascribe the evolution of civilisation to the action of governments ? We seem to, have reached a critical period in our hisw tory. Society is shaken to its very foundations by opposing forces and conflicting ideas — thoughtful men are uneasy and alarmed at the outlook, and many, are asking, is not some higher, ideal now needed,, some nobler typo of life which, with the wiser use of our modcyn powers, might* rescue our civilisation from the clegradutioci and corruption \vhich threaten its very existence, ax\r\ carry it forward to a nobler future - to, heights as yoi; undreamt of save by some few enthusiasts whom the world. \n v its wisdom now seorm as dreamers andl visionaries 'I In QOJu&tasion, tho lecturer said ibab.}/« WouKl take "The Ideal of Civilisation in the Future *' as his subject* nsxfc Sunday evening. We arc informed tho Committee fttis arranged for ihe continuance of Mr Gullivers addresses in the Choral Hall fop 1 tU© future.